Cost Effective Concrete Pavement Cross Sections - ?· Cost Effective Concrete Pavement Cross Sections…

Download Cost Effective Concrete Pavement Cross Sections - ?· Cost Effective Concrete Pavement Cross Sections…

Post on 11-Aug-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p> REPORT NUMBER: WI/SPR-03-05 </p><p>COST EFFECTIVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT CROSS SECTIONS </p><p>FINAL REPORT </p><p> JUNE 2006 </p></li><li><p> Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report Number WI/SPR-03-05 </p><p> 2. Government Accession No. </p><p> 3. Recipient's Catalog No. </p><p> 5. Report Date June 2006 </p><p> 4. Title and Subtitle Cost Effective Concrete Pavement Cross Sections Final Report </p><p>6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) James A. Crovetti </p><p> 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) </p><p> 9. Performing Organization Name and Address Marquette University Dept. of Civil &amp; Environmental Engineering P.O. Box 1881 Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 </p><p> 11. Contract or Grant No. WisDOT SPR # 0092-45-79, 0092-45-80 and 0687-45-79 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report; 1995 - 2005 </p><p> 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Wisconsin Department of Transportation Division of Transportation System Development Bureau of Technical Services Pavements Section Madison, WI 53704 </p><p> 14. Sponsoring Agency Code WisDOT Research Study #95-03 </p><p> 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report presents the findings of a study of alternate pavement designs targeted at reducing the initial construction costs of concrete pavements without compromising pavement performance. Test sections were constructed with alternate dowel materials, reduced dowel placements, variable thickness concrete slabs and alternate surface and subsurface drainage details. Performance data was collected out to 5 and 7 years after construction. The study results indicate that FRP composite dowels may not be a practical alternative to conventional epoxy coated steel dowels due to their reduced rigidity, which results in lower deflection load transfer capacities at transverse joints. Ride quality measures also indicate higher IRI values on sections constructed with FRP composite dowels. Study results for sections constructed with reduced placements of solid stainless steel dowels also indicate reduced load transfer capacity and increased IRI values as compared to similarly designed sections incorporating epoxy coated dowels. Reduced doweling in the driving lane wheel paths also is shown to be detrimental to performance for most constructed test sections. The performance of sections with reduced doweling in the passing lane wheel paths indicates that this alternate may be justifiable to maintain performance trends similar to those exhibited by the driving lane with standard dowel placements. Performance data from sections constructed with variable slab geometry and drainage designs indicate that one-way surface and base drainage designs are performing as well or better than standard crowned pavements with two-way base drainage. The drainage capacity of the base layer, constructed with open graded number 1 stone, appears sufficient to handle all infiltrated water. 17. Key Words FRP composite dowels, stainless steel dowels, alternate dowel locations, alternate dowel spacing, variable slab thickness </p><p> 18. Distribution Statement </p><p>Distribution unlimited, authorized for public release </p><p> 19. Security Classif. </p><p>(of this report) Unclassified </p><p> 20. Security Classif. (of </p><p>this page) Unclassified </p><p> 21. No. of Pages 99 </p><p> 22. Price </p></li><li><p>COST EFFECTIVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT CROSS SECTIONS </p><p> FINAL REPORT WI/SPR-03-05 WisDOT Highway Research Study # 95-03 by </p><p> James A. Crovetti, Ph.D. </p><p>Marquette University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 June 2006 for WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT BUREAU OF TECHNICAL SERVICES PAVEMENTS SECTION 3502 KINSMAN BOULEVARD, MADISON, WI 53704 The Pavements Section of the Division of Transportation System Development, Bureau of Technical Services, conducts and manages the pavement research program of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The Federal Highway Administration provides financial and technical assistance for these activities, including review and approval of publications. This publication does not endorse or approve any commercial product even though trade names may be cited, does not necessarily reflect official views or polices of the agency, and does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. </p><p>i </p></li><li><p>ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS </p><p>The author gratefully acknowledges the support of Ms. Debra Bischoff of the </p><p>Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) during the conduct of this study. The </p><p>following manufacturers are also acknowledged for providing dowel bars to WisDOT for </p><p>participation in this research effort: MMFG, Glasforms, Creative Pultrusions, RJD, Slater </p><p>Steels, Avesta Sheffield, and Damascus-Bishop Tube Company. The Composites Institute </p><p>and the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSNIA) are also gratefully </p><p>acknowledged for providing assistance with project coordination. </p><p>ii </p></li><li><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................1 </p><p>1.1 Project Background .........................................................................................1 1.2 Test Section Descriptions................................................................................5 </p><p> 2.0 Laboratory Tests ........................................................................................................9 </p><p>2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................9 2.2 Load-Deflection Tests .....................................................................................9 2.3 Pull-Out Tests Non-Oiled Dowels...............................................................16 2.4 Pull-Out Tests Oiled Dowels.......................................................................19 </p><p> 3.0 Test Section Construction ........................................................................................28 </p><p>3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................28 3.2 WIS 29 Abbotsford ........................................................................................28 3.3 WIS 29 Wittenberg ........................................................................................31 3.4 WIS 29 Tilleda ...............................................................................................34 </p><p> 4.0 Performance Monitoring...........................................................................................37 </p><p>4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................37 4.2 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Analysis...............................................37 </p><p>4.2.1 Pre-Paving Deflection Testing .......................................................37 4.2.2 Post-Paving Backcalculation of Pavement Parameters .................39 4.2.3 Post-Paving Transverse Joint Analysis..........................................41 4.2.4 Pre-Paving Deflection Testing WIS 29 Abbotsford .....................43 4.2.5 Post-Paving Deflection Testing WIS 29 Abbotsford....................47 4.2.6 Post-Paving Deflection Testing WIS 29 Wittenberg....................57 4.2.7 Post-Paving Deflection Testing WIS 29 Tilleda...........................62 </p><p>4.3 Ride Quality Measures ..................................................................................68 4.3.1 WIS 29 Abbotsford.........................................................................68 4.3.2 WIS 29 Wittenberg.........................................................................73 4.3.3 WIS 29 Tilleda ...............................................................................77 </p><p>4.4 Distress Measures.........................................................................................80 4.4.1 WIS 29 Abbotsford.........................................................................80 4.4.2 WIS 29 Wittenberg.........................................................................84 4.4.3 WIS 29 Tilleda ...............................................................................86 </p><p>iii </p></li><li><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 5.0 Construction Cost Considerations............................................................................88 </p><p>5.1 WIS 29 Abbotsford ........................................................................................88 5.2 WIS 29 Wittenberg ........................................................................................89 5.3 WIS 29 Tilleda ..............................................................................................89 5.4 Initial Construction Costs..............................................................................90 </p><p>5.4.1 Alternate Dowel Placements..........................................................92 5.4.2 Trapezoidal Cross Sections...........................................................92 5.4.3 Alternative Drainage Designs ........................................................92 5.4.4 Alternative Dowel Materials ...........................................................93 </p><p> 6.0 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................94 </p><p>6.1 Summary of Study Findings ..........................................................................94 6.2 Recommendations for Further Study.............................................................99 </p><p> APPENDIX A Test section Location Maps </p><p>iv </p></li><li><p> 1 </p><p> CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction </p><p>This report presents details relating to the design, construction, and performance of </p><p>concrete pavement test sections constructed in the State of Wisconsin along WIS 29 in </p><p>Clark, Marathon and Shawano Counties. These test sections were constructed during the </p><p>summers of 1997 and 1999 to validate the constructability and performance of cost-</p><p>effective alternative concrete pavement designs incorporating variable dowel bar </p><p>placements, dowel bar materials, slab thicknesses, and drainage details. </p><p>Chapter 1 of this report provides project background information. Results of </p><p>laboratory tests conducted on test specimens fabricated prior to construction are provided </p><p>in Chapter 2. Details on the construction of each test section are provided in Chapter 3. </p><p>Chapter 4 provides the results of performance testing conducted immediately after </p><p>construction and over the study duration of each test section. Chapter 5 provides an </p><p>analysis of initial construction costs for the various test sections. A summary of all research </p><p>results and recommendations for further research is provided in Chapter 6. </p><p>1.1 Project Background </p><p>The present pavement selection policy of the Wisconsin Department of </p><p>Transportation (WisDOT), as provided in Procedure 14-10-10 of the Facilities Development </p><p>Manual, limits the design alternatives for Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements and </p><p>inhibits the designers ability to select cross-sections deviating from uniform slab </p><p>thicknesses with doweled transverse joints. Currently, uniform slab thicknesses and </p><p>conventional joint load transfer devices are incorporated into the design based on the </p><p>heavy truck traffic in the driving lane. While this strategy provides for adequate pavement </p><p>structure in this truck lane to limit faulting and slab cracking to tolerable levels, there is a </p><p>potential for over-design in other traffic lanes which may experience significantly lower </p><p>Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) applications over the service life of the pavement. </p><p>Pavement design analyses were conducted to investigate the effects of variable slab </p><p>thickness within and/or across traffic lanes, variable load transfer designs, and alternative </p></li><li><p> 2 </p><p>base layer drainage designs. </p><p>Four alternate dowel patterns were developed to reduce the number of dowel bars </p><p>installed across transverse pavement joints. These patterns were developed with the </p><p>constraint that dowel positions had to be consistent with dowel bar insertion (DBI) </p><p>equipment currently used within the State of Wisconsin. This constraint allowed for the </p><p>removal of certain dowels but did not allow for any repositioning of dowels, i.e., the 12-inch </p><p>center-to-center placement openings could not be changed. A minimum of three dowels </p><p>per wheel path was established and used for one alternate to provide marginal load transfer </p><p>capacity across the transverse joints of both travel lanes. Additional dowels were </p><p>positioned within the outer wheel path of the driving lane and/or near the slab edge to </p><p>increase the load transfer capacity of these critical pavement locations. This selection </p><p>strategy resulted in four dowel placement alternates which are illustrated in Figure 1.1.1. </p><p>In addition to the dowel placement alternates, test sections were also constructed </p><p>using alternative dowel materials which may be considered as corrosion resistant, including </p><p>fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite dowels, solid stainless steel dowels, and hollow- </p><p>core, mortar-filled (hollow-filled) stainless steel dowels. Variable thickness slab designs </p><p>were also developed in an effort to reduce the initial paving costs while maintaining the </p><p>constructability of the pavement structure. Two trapezoidal PCC slab cross-sections were </p><p>developed, each with the fully-reduced slab thickness coincident with the median edge of </p><p>the pavement. For one design alternate, the reduced median-edge slab thickness </p><p>increases linearly to the full design thickness at the center-lane joint, resulting in a </p><p>trapezoidal passing lane and full thickness driving lane. For the second design alternate, </p><p>the reduced median-edge slab thickness increases linearly across both lanes. For the </p><p>variable slab thickness designs, the passing lane width was increased to 15 ft (striped at 12 </p><p>ft) to minimize the potential for extreme edge loadings along the thinnest portion of the </p><p>slab. Figure 1.1.2 provides illustrations of the trapezoidal slab thickness designs. </p></li><li><p> 3 </p><p>Figure 1.1.1 Standard and Alternate Dowel Placements </p><p>Standard placement 12 inch c-c spacing, 26 dowels per joint </p><p>Alternate 1- 3 dowels in each wheel path at 12 in c-c spacing, 12 dowels per joint </p><p>Alternate 2 - 4 dowels in outer wheel path and 3 dowels in other wheel paths, 12 in c-c spacing, 13 dowels per joint </p><p>Alternate 4 - 3 dowels in each wheel path at 12 in c-c spacing, 1 dowel near outer edge, 13 dowels per joint </p><p>Alternate 3 - 4 dowels in outer wheel path and 3 dowels in other wheel paths, 12 in c-c spacing, 1 dowel at outer edge, 14 dowels per joint </p><p> Dowel Location Removed Dowel </p><p>12 ft passing lane</p><p>14 ft passing lane </p></li><li><p> 4 </p><p>Figure 1.1.2: Variable Slab Thickness and Drainage Designs (not to scale) </p><p>14 ft Driving Lane 15 ft Passing Lane </p><p>14 ft Driving...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >